The defendants bear the burden to prove hardship in a specific performance contract; failure to do so invalidates dismissing the plaintiff's suit regardless of the trial court's findings.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2014 passed in R.A.No.70 of 2012 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur ('First Appellate Court' for short).

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellants were defendants No.1 to 3, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and other respondents were the other defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of ₹1,20,000/- and they have received ₹20,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount and executed a sale agreement dated 07.12.2007. The plaintiff demanded defendants No. 1 to 3, to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Despite the request made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not comply with the terms and conditions of the sale agreement. The plaintiff, to prove that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract got issued a legal notice dated 23.01.2008. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have received the notice and defendants No.2 and one Kote Rangappa have not claimed the notices. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Kote Rangappa have issued an evasive reply on 04.02.2008. Kote Rangappa died on 20.02.2008. The defendants have denied to receive the sale consideration amount and execute a register sale deed. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of a contract. Hence, prays to decree the suit.

5. Initially, defendant Nos.2 and 3 appeared through the counsel, but did not file a written statement. Subsequently filed an application seeking permission to file a written statement. The said application came to be allowed, subject to payment of cost of ₹2,000/-. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 failed to pay the cost, but filed another application seeking reduction of the cost, which was rejected by the trial Court and hence, the written statement filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 was not taken on record.

6. Defendant Nos.1, 6 and 7 have not filed a written statement.

7. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 filed a written statement admitting the averments made in the plaint. It is also contended that they have executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and received the earnest money. It is contended that they are ready to execute the registered sale deed as per the terms and conditions of the sale agreement dated 07.12.2007 in favour of the plaintiff, in case defendant Nos.1 to 3, and 6 and 7 co-operate for execution of the sale. Hence, prays to decree the suit of the plaintiff.

8. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

9. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and marked 16 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. The defendants neither led oral nor documentary evidence. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 14.06.2012.

10. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of suit in OS No.323 of 2008, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.70 of 2012, on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur.

11. The First Appellat